As necessary basic infrastructure of a school (cf. Breiter 2021, 568), digital learning management systems (LMS) have been used in universities and schools since around the turn of the millennium. However, their usage in schools has rapidly increased in the course of the Covid-19-pandemic (Helm & Postlbauer 2021), opening the desideratum, which role these platforms can play in (inclusive) school development processes and which potential disadvantages may arise from them.

LMS can be defined as the totality of available platforms, services, software solutions, learning tools and educational media that significantly support content-related and organizational work as well as collaboration in educational settings for teachers, students and, if applicable, other stakeholders (cf. Breiter et al. 2021, 5). While recent studies have focused, for example, on diversity-oriented functions of LMS to support self-regulated learning (Reynolds 2016), to provide individualized (Hase et al. 2022) or differentiated (Frohn & Pozas 2021a) instruction, to enable teacher cooperation (Frohn & Bengel 2022) or to improve parents’ participation in school processes (Bradley 2022), little is known about the potential role of LMS in processes of (inclusive) school development.

This study therefore aims at identifying means and functions of LMS for possible fields of school and lesson development. Based on the assumption that school development should always aim at the value of diversity in schools and lessons, we follow a mixed-method approach (see below) to shed light on the following research questions:

• Which areas of inclusive school development can be supported using LMS?
• Which areas of teaching and learning in heterogeneous groups can be supported using LMS?
• Which students’ competencies can be fostered using LMS?
• How can LMS support differentiated instruction?
• What are the obstacles in using LMS for school development?
• What dangers do teachers perceive in the use of LMS?

In order to explore the research questions, our study consists of two sequential stages: First, we conducted interviews in three cycles (2020, 2021, 2022) among Berlin teachers at schools with a high percentage of students from low-income households (Frohn 2021; Frohn & Pozas 2021b; Frohn & Bengel 2022). While the data showed that the role of LMS at Berlin secondary schools changed quite rapidly, these changes took different turns: According to the interviewees, LMS were hardly used during the first school closures in Germany. The data from the second survey phase suggest a clear development in the use of LMS, both in quantity and quality, which was discussed in almost all interviews. However, the third round showed different developments: While some schools made the use of LMS mandatory and thereby started to implement school development through the use of LMS, other schools almost stopped using LMS completely as soon as regular classes were held again. These findings led to the question if these first findings applied to other schools in Germany, and how the data could be used for diversity-sensitive developmental processes in potential hybrid school settings.

Therefore and secondly, based on the qualitatively generated categories, we developed an instrument in order to validate our findings from the interview study and to learn more about teachers’ use of LMS in the whole of Germany. The questionnaire is currently being shared through various means, and up to now has a sample of 402 primary and secondary school teachers in Germany.

The preliminary quantitative findings seem to confirm the interview data (see below).

The study follows a mixed-methods approach, using (1) exploratory, qualitative findings to (2) design an instrument for further quantitative research. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, semi-structured teacher-interviews were conducted longitudinally among Berlin teachers at schools with a high percentage of students from low-income families (April 2020: N=16; April-June 2021: N=14; February-May 2022: N=13). About three quarters of the interviewed teachers work at community schools and integrated secondary schools, about one quarter at grammar schools. The semi-structured interviews were conducted via video call (average 47 minutes), recorded, anonymized and transcribed in a simplified form according to Dresing et al. (2015). Using MAXQDA, the data were analyzed qualitatively according to Kuckartz (2018) and categorized inductively-deductively. With regards to the questionnaire development, following the inductively-deductively explored category system, the extracted units of meaning were inductively structured into statements which were transformed into the questionnaire items. A total of 35 items with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) were developed. Examples of such items are: “The use of digital LMS is an important tool for the development of hybrid teaching-learning forms”, “The use of digital LMS requires a reorganization of information technology teaching and learning environments”, or “The use of digital LMS does not allow for more comprehensive differentiation in everyday teaching”. At the time of submission, the sample consists of N=402 primary and secondary school teachers in Germany.

At this time in the research process, the quantitative research is still ongoing, since the online-questionnaire has not been closed yet. Therefore, the findings, discussion and the implications of the study will all be presented at the conference. However, the current state of data suggests that the exploratory findings from the interview data can be confirmed through the quantitative analysis. Following the first interpretations, LMS seem to be a useful tool in processes of school development: In combination with comprehensive qualification measures, LMS can contribute to teacher cooperation, lesson development, documentation of learning processes, differentiated instruction, parent participation and more transparent coordination of school and lesson processes. However, teachers also address important points of criticism. According to the data, increasing digitalization can lead to a shift in boundaries – both in terms of time and space – between the working and the private world, possibly increasing the already heavy workload of teachers and students through potentially constant accessibility. In addition, the data also show the concern that school as a social space might be neglected by the increasing use of digital tools, since the digital exchange cannot do justice to the direct exchange. In summary, this paper shows how using LMS in schools can contribute to diversity-sensitive school development while pointing out possible risks for the stakeholders involved. From these results, options for action will be discussed, aiming at how school and lesson development can be improved through using LMS towards hybrid settings of teaching and learning.

Bradley, V. (2022). Middle School Parents‘ Beliefs Regarding Learning Management System Use in Mathematics. Istes. Breiter, A. (2021). Strategische Planung einer lernförderlichen IT-Infrastruktur für Schulen. In G. Brägger & H.-G. Rolff (ed.), Pädagogik. Handbuch Lernen mit digitalen Medien (p. 567–577). Beltz. Breiter, A., Müller, M., Telle, L. & Zeising, A. (2021). Digitalisierungsstrategien im föderalen Schulsystem: Lernmanagementsysteme und ihre Betriebsmodelle. https://www.telekom-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/ifib-lernplattformen-final.pdf (20.1.2023). Desing, T. ,Pehl, T., & Schmieder, C. (2015). Manual (on) Transcription. 3rd English edn. Marburg. Frohn, J. (2021). Troubled schools in troubled times: How COVID-19 affects educational inequalities and what measures can be taken. European Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211020974 Frohn, J. & Bengel, A. (2022). Impulse zur Lehrkräftekooperation durch die Nutzung digitaler Lernmanagementsysteme (LMS) – „… nicht nur gemeinsame Absprachen, sondern wirklich eine gemeinsame Planung“. In J. Frohn, A. Bengel, A. Piezunka, T. Simon & T. Dietze (ed.), Inklusionsorientierte Schulentwicklung (p. 49-60). Klinkhardt. Frohn, J., & Pozas, M. (2021a). Using Differentiated Instruction (DI) through digital Learning Management Systems (LMS) – How LMS can change teaching and learning in heterogeneous learning groups. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) held in Yerevan (presentation online) Frohn, J., & Pozas, M. (2021). „Und das Schwierigste ist und bleibt halt, alleine zu lernen“: Eine explorative Untersuchung zum Lehren und Lernen auf Distanz in der Oberstufe. WE_OS Jahrbuch, 4(1), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.11576/weos-4944. Hase, A., Kahnbach, L., Kuhl, P. & Lehr, D. (2022). To use or not to use learning data: A survey study to explain German primary school teachers’ usage of data from digital learning platforms for purposes of individualization. Front. Educ. 7:920498. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.920498 Helm, C. & Postlbauer, A. (2021). Schulschließungen in Österreich – Ein Fazit nach einem Jahr Pandemie. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 68 (4), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2021.art27d Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz. Reynolds, R. B. (2016). Relationships among tasks, collaborative inquiry processes, inquiry resolutions, and knowledge outcomes in adolescents during guided discovery-based game design in school. Journal of Information Science, 42, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515614537